status quo?
over this break i have been doing lesson plans for my spring eartraining and theory classes. as i sketched my classes out i realized that my goals were becoming much different than in the past. i wasn't worried about what i am supposed to teach, but really concentrated to what skills i think our students should know.
take music dictation, its still a big part of the high school ap music theory exam*** and its featured prominently in the eartraining textbooks, but is it really needed? i can imagine a time before recorded music, that it would be a very good skill to have. the ability to sketch down large amounts of melody, harmony and bass line for future study during or right after a live performance. i have taught it, and with smaller classes of high school students 4-5 days a week most students can be successful. but the real question is; how useful is this? the idea that we have to limit the repetitions and timing seems short-sighted because of current technology. what would bach do? (wwbd?) of course he would have a digital recorder and headphones to transcribe buxtehude into his G5 powerbook. although i still think he would make his kids tune the harpsichords with tuning forks until their hands bled.
with this being said, i have started moving into teaching transcription as an alternative to harmonic dictation. some of my best insights into music, where my transcription study sketches of music before i got hold of a score. (einstein on the beach, coronation of poppea) i still do some melodic dictation, but have a little different focus of audiation and/or singing and playing on the primary instrument, combined with paper and pencil.
with computers and cd players as the dominant technology, it only makes sense to teach our students how to best use the current technology. its been the staple of jazz musicians (including myself) for years. since consumer recording technology has been available since the 1950's why are we still using such an old pedagogy?
the other thing is that why do we still put any value into teaching 4-part writing? it still seems to be the teaching staple in most theory classes, and it is used to introduce "tonal counterpoint" but why waste the time on it? its not a pure counterpoint and its "rules" are arbritrary and confusing to many students. as a composer i cannot really think when i use this fake "keyboard harmony" for any use. i prefer to focus on the old school (fux/jeppesen/swindale) when dealing with any tonal harmonization. starting with 1st and 2nd species, 2 and 3-part writing gets them to focused on the outer voice writing first. by introducing 4-part writing before 2-part counterpoint, students are introduced to the tail (fleas) before the dog. there is no fundamental understanding of the difference between line and harmony. i love bach's music, but using it as a teaching tool is insane.
the main reason i write this is that i am very surprised why we are still teaching this way?
i know many great colleagues who grumble, but feel pressure to please their peers and chairs.
i hear students (at csuf and other schools) complain bitterly about how they aren't learning anything practical.
how long are we going to keep beating this dead horse?
counterpoint and ear-training do matter
but can we refocus the content to teach practical and useful skills for the students we are teaching today, not 50-100 years ago?
also....
fellow west coast blogger devin hurd has a great post on cornelius cardew's newly remastered cd, the great learning.
*** this "test" is a whole other problem. i get the feeling that all of this is a classic example where the test pushes artifical demand for a whole range of new and improved "educational" methods and materials. i'm not suggesting that i have a "better" method, i just feel that primary source materials by fux, zarlino, rameau, and heinichen(and many others) do a pretty good job laying out the fundamentals. its my job to translate them into useful information for my students.
take music dictation, its still a big part of the high school ap music theory exam*** and its featured prominently in the eartraining textbooks, but is it really needed? i can imagine a time before recorded music, that it would be a very good skill to have. the ability to sketch down large amounts of melody, harmony and bass line for future study during or right after a live performance. i have taught it, and with smaller classes of high school students 4-5 days a week most students can be successful. but the real question is; how useful is this? the idea that we have to limit the repetitions and timing seems short-sighted because of current technology. what would bach do? (wwbd?) of course he would have a digital recorder and headphones to transcribe buxtehude into his G5 powerbook. although i still think he would make his kids tune the harpsichords with tuning forks until their hands bled.
with this being said, i have started moving into teaching transcription as an alternative to harmonic dictation. some of my best insights into music, where my transcription study sketches of music before i got hold of a score. (einstein on the beach, coronation of poppea) i still do some melodic dictation, but have a little different focus of audiation and/or singing and playing on the primary instrument, combined with paper and pencil.
with computers and cd players as the dominant technology, it only makes sense to teach our students how to best use the current technology. its been the staple of jazz musicians (including myself) for years. since consumer recording technology has been available since the 1950's why are we still using such an old pedagogy?
the other thing is that why do we still put any value into teaching 4-part writing? it still seems to be the teaching staple in most theory classes, and it is used to introduce "tonal counterpoint" but why waste the time on it? its not a pure counterpoint and its "rules" are arbritrary and confusing to many students. as a composer i cannot really think when i use this fake "keyboard harmony" for any use. i prefer to focus on the old school (fux/jeppesen/swindale) when dealing with any tonal harmonization. starting with 1st and 2nd species, 2 and 3-part writing gets them to focused on the outer voice writing first. by introducing 4-part writing before 2-part counterpoint, students are introduced to the tail (fleas) before the dog. there is no fundamental understanding of the difference between line and harmony. i love bach's music, but using it as a teaching tool is insane.
the main reason i write this is that i am very surprised why we are still teaching this way?
i know many great colleagues who grumble, but feel pressure to please their peers and chairs.
i hear students (at csuf and other schools) complain bitterly about how they aren't learning anything practical.
how long are we going to keep beating this dead horse?
counterpoint and ear-training do matter
but can we refocus the content to teach practical and useful skills for the students we are teaching today, not 50-100 years ago?
also....
fellow west coast blogger devin hurd has a great post on cornelius cardew's newly remastered cd, the great learning.
*** this "test" is a whole other problem. i get the feeling that all of this is a classic example where the test pushes artifical demand for a whole range of new and improved "educational" methods and materials. i'm not suggesting that i have a "better" method, i just feel that primary source materials by fux, zarlino, rameau, and heinichen(and many others) do a pretty good job laying out the fundamentals. its my job to translate them into useful information for my students.
Labels: music education, teaching
posted by paul bailey at
7:00 AM
4 Comments:
OK, so here are my thoughts (for what they're worth).
I understand what you mean about the four-part issue. I have spent more time unlearning it than I did learning it. That being said, there's something to be said for learning the rules before you can break them. I have never been a big fan of the way that theory is taught, but that may be because I am more interested in writing it and that my musical language does not relate much to chromatic harmony (which I find very dated in most cases). When it comes down to it, I guess it's a good thing that I know it's there (should I ever desire to move in that direction), so that may be the value of it. You know, not reinventing the wheel and all. Also, it does help you understand the music from the past that we listen to (or not). Maybe we have more of an issue with the four-part thing because we are composers. Maybe it's all about who is being served and for what reason.
In 1989, when I was in a master class with Philip Glass, one of the other students played his piece, which used only noise (and was quite interesting). Phil asked him what his training was, and he said that he was avoiding a "traditional music education" so that he would not be negatively influenced by it. Phillip replied with "Well, that's great, but what are you going to do when you're tired of working with noise." The student had no answer for him.
As for dictation, one of my biggest regrets is not taking it more seriously in college and not doing more of it (than and now). I am by no means a Luddite, but I feel that the less attached to technology, the better. I think that composers should be able to write without being married to a computer, or even an instrument for that matter. I often tell my students (maybe too often) that you can not be overqualified as a musician, and that certainly applies to the ear. I think sight-singing/dictation is neglected all too often, but please understand that this is coming from someone who is 40 (and wishes I had done it more) and not they guy I was 22 years ago (who hated it).
Some days I find myself dreaming of a day when there is no electricity, and all music is written by hand and performed by real live musicians. Crazy, huh?
I guess that's enough for now. Thanks for getting me to think!
Shane -
Regarding ear-training and dictation, I whole-heartedly agree. Technological tools are great and the myriad of instruments created over the past several hundred years are great but what do you do when all you have are --- human voices and ears!
I have been studying it and wish i could do more -- a lesson once a week with a private teacher is not as efficient as I'd like.
As for counterpoint - I entirely agree with the post. Studying Jeppesen (or Fux, et al) is much wiser than starting with a Bach chorale. My study of Jeppesen's counterpoint text has informed my hearing and playing of Bach and much polyphonic music. I'd add that improvising using (liberally) the rules of counterpoint is a great tool for developing overall musicianship.
I've always been good at writing down what I hear, and its main attraction to me is that other people who aren't so naturally gifted find it damn impressive.
It's also a great feeling to be able to walk into the local folk night, sit and listen a while with pencil and paper, and hand a band a rough sketch of their music. It's interesting to watch their faces, work out who can read it or not. Maybe not a huge incentive to learn, but fun :)
xx
helen,
i bet you had a very musical family or a very good music teacher at a young age. if only all our students had that same experience.
cheers,
paul
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home